Yet another beheading. What's the world going to do about ISIS?

[Sjhsgjhsgjshjshjsh]

I believe you. The problem is it seems a hell lot of scholars have failed to convey the real interpretation to their followers- for centuries.

well cant help it there always would be those people . Still i don't judge based on anything other than quran and suna

Who is "innocent"? Are the idolators innocent if they refuse to convert? What when Muslims are the invaders, and bringing war upon idolators?

Muslims themselves make statements which are hard to digest...

Well to define Innocent is the people who does not fight and who are peaceful
If they refuse to believe they will be judged by Allah and not by human
We as human have no right to judge them and god himself does not allow us to do so .
If they fight then muslim fight back .
Thats how Quran portrays it.

Edit: Ah plus
There is a fatwa that says muslims shouldn't invade ,but only fight back .
They are nether a prophet or a god .(but even with that fatwa a lot of muslim invades when they know its wrong)

You must be registered for see links

Now which of these will go to hell? the idolator who is lower than the lowest? Or the guy who misinterpreted Quran but was a believer otherwise? Or he is not a believer if he cannot follow it all?

Of course one can disagree with the interpretation but that little articles suggests that Idolators are not innocent to begin with. I checked some other sources and they seem to suggest that they are innocent as long as they are not educated about Islam but if they learn about it and still refuse to believe then they are sinners and a fair game. It was not very heartening.

The sin is not in just misinterpreting Quran ,but in taking a live

Killing is one of the biggest sins in islam it says
"God can forgive everything expect the right of other people -talking bad about people,injustice,beating,stealing,raping,killing etc..
Can't be forgiven unless the victim forgive the criminal ."

Yes,it says idolators who refuses to believe are going to hell ,but as long as they are peaceful in earth we have no right to hurt them by anyway.

 

[Avani]

well cant help it there always would be those people . Still i don't judge based on anything other than quran and suna

Well to define Innocent is the people who does not fight and who are peaceful
If they refuse to believe they will be judged by Allah and not by human
We as human have no right to judge them and god himself does not allow us to do so .
If they fight then muslim fight back .
Thats how Quran portrays it.

Edit: Ah plus
There is a fatwa that says muslims shouldn't invade ,but only fight back .
They are nether a prophet or a god .(but even with that fatwa a lot of muslim invades when they know its wrong)




The sin is not in just misinterpreting Quran ,but in taking a live

Killing is one of the biggest sins in islam it says
"God can forgive everything expect the right of other people -talking bad about people,injustice,beating,stealing,raping,killing etc..
Can't be forgiven unless the victim forgive the criminal ."

Yes,it says idolators who refuses to believe are going to hell ,but as long as they are peaceful in earth we have no right to hurt them by anyway.

Yeah I tried to look it up but all the scholars I found, using the context of innocent and what's killing and when it could be forgiven and when not, were only discussing " unlawful killing of a believer or fellow Muslim" . In case of an unbeliever it seemed wide open to interpretations and there were a lot of side stepping from commenting on that one directly. And this is only one issue..

Anyway I get your point. And I wouldn't even disagree for I am aware if everyone interpreted it in extreme manner then we would have had a bigger war on already and much more slaughter. But I cannot ignore that Taliban or other such groups and their leaders are also considered scholars and are still running their schools which are in turn being supported by other countries officially as well as non officially. And many of them are calling for Jehad which they claim to be a just cause.

As a Muslim you can say they are not real Muslims when they act as terrorist, but it makes little difference to those who are going to be attacked in the name of religious cause anyway. So people are going to identify by the name they claim to be fighting for.

It's kind of catch 22- if they are going to attack, then we are going to fight back as we have been doing for 1300+ years and then Jehadi can claim it's in battle against non believers who are hurting fellow Muslims( while it were some of their fellow Muslims who initiated it when they left their country and came here to spread the belief with swords in hands). But many others from the group play neutral and ignore aggression of their own Brothers as a fellow Muslim misguided or not, for that's something for Allah to deal with( to forgive their wrong deeds or not).

So what do we do?

I guess the Time will decide it the future. While it is still deliberating, both sides can blame another for the mess while terrorists do what they want.

 

[Sjhsgjhsgjshjshjsh]

Yeah I tried to look it up but all the scholars I found, using the context of innocent and what's killing and when it could be forgiven and when not, were only discussing " unlawful killing of a believer or fellow Muslim" . In case of an unbeliever it seemed wide open to interpretations and there were a lot of side stepping from commenting on that one directly. And this is only one issue..

Anyway I get your point. And I wouldn't even disagree for I am aware if everyone interpreted it in extreme manner then we would have had a bigger war on already and much more slaughter. But I cannot ignore that Taliban or other such groups and their leaders are also considered scholars and are still running their schools which are in turn being supported by other countries officially as well as non officially. And many of them are calling for Jehad which they claim to be a just cause.

As a Muslim you can say they are not real Muslims when they act as terrorist, but it makes little difference to those who are going to be attacked in the name of religious cause anyway. So people are going to identify by the name they claim to be fighting for.

It's kind of catch 22- if they are going to attack, then we are going to fight back as we have been doing for 1300+ years and then Jehadi can claim it's in battle against non believers who are hurting fellow Muslims( while it were some of their fellow Muslims who initiated it when they left their country and came here to spread the belief with swords in hands). But many others from the group play neutral and ignore aggression of their own Brothers as a fellow Muslim misguided or not, for that's something for Allah to deal with( to forgive their wrong deeds or not).

So what do we do?

I guess the Time will decide it the future. While it is still deliberating, both sides can blame another for the mess while terrorists do what they want.

Pretty much yes .

To them their way is the true islam and to us our way is the true islam .

But just because there are many of them doesn't necessary prove its the right way of islam.It may look that most muslims are like them that because the media focus on the loud ones those kind of muslims (its understandable since there is no reason for media to show the normal muslims)

I have seen those kind of people in my country a lot .any sane person who reads quran can tell their actions are way too extreme of quran

For an example :i remember one guy at the street hit my aunt with a stick telling her to cover her hands (her whole body is covered ,but according to him she is **** for showing her hand)

 

[Wabbit]

No true Scotsmen
I find it amusing,Islamic terrorists forces you to read Koran and Muslims tells you to read Koran because you don't know who is right.
I dnt see the same intensity in Muslims opposing ISIS that was in opposing/blaming Israel/west and defending ISIS. Gathering on street and shouting and stuff for Palestinians but not guiding the misguided people of your own. Who cares because they are converting people to Islam and they are going to kill and conquer other religions right? Because when a terrorists points takes you hostage and points a gun at you and ask what religion you are and tells you to recite Koran you wont have a problem.

 

[Aim64C]

This is going to be long, and some will find it quite offensive.

@Aim64C: I admit, Muslims fail to criticise themselves as much as they do others, but that's a result of a lack of education, and experience, and general human failure, nothing unique to Muslims in the end.

To a degree, yes.

However, Islam is a notoriously difficult religion to criticize because of its culture of killing people who criticize it.

Take the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Contrary to popular portrayal - this is -nothing- like the rift between Protestants and Catholics. The debate boils down to whether the Caliph (ruler of the Islamic State) should be individuals with a hereditary claim to The Prophet (Imams) or people who are 'best qualified for the job' (and who determines that?)

Which is, interestingly enough, one of the few practical things about running a state that is left out of the Koran. If Mohammed was God's prophet and Islam is what God prescribed for the people of the Earth ... then who rules after Mohammed is gone?

Apparently whoever can beat the disagreement out of Muslims. Which is par for the course.

In addition, context and background of the verses your quoting are important.

Problem:

The Koran HAS no context.

It is arranged longest verse to shortest verse and not in any chronological order. If context were important, it would be arranged in chronological order with chapters being relative to narrative topic. This is not how the Koran is arranged. Thus, it can only be interpreted that context has absolutely nothing to do with the revelations.

Further:

You must be registered for see links

This is a little bit different from my own argument - but is similar in spirit.

The Koran is timeless. It has always existed with God. Right?

Thus, it simply can't be contextual.

There is one scenario in which it could be considered contextual - and that is if you see the Koran as a sort of 'shadow' cast by the wisdom of God through the life of Mohammed. In this sense - the Koran could be seen as how God's wisdom directed Mohammed within a limited fragment of time.

But this means that the Koran is -not- "In heaven with God" and it means that its practical use to Islam in today's context is severely limited.

Thus, we either accept that the Koran is the unabridged word of God that is timeless and will forever be applicable (unless it contradicts itself...) - or we accept that the Koran is an interesting look into the mind of a sociopath with little other merit beyond that.

For example, Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), the 8th Chapter you’ve quoted directly without regard for background and context changes when you understand a few things, (and in shaa Allah I'll try my best to keep it clear and concise):

• This chapter was revealed after the Battle of Badr. A Battle between the early Muslims and Quraysh (the Ruling Tribe). The Muslims were outnumbered roughly 3:1 and had no weaponry and armour, which had been left behind because the Muslims whom had outwardly proclaimed their faith had been forced in secret to immigrate to Medina or be tortured.
• The Muslims had no solid ground to act out their lifestyle yet, so being firm in belief was important to weed out people who turn tail later.
  s
• The chapter talks about many issues. From defining what a believer is (someone spending on others with the sustenance God has provided them), to not turning your back on the enemy (which is dishonourable in any nation today). It works to build the faith of the Muslims and to stress on them not to be taken up by the materialistic spoils of war else they go corrupt in morality.
• The particular verses, 12 and 15 which you tend to quote are presented out of context. Because verses 12-14 are often collected together as they are said God is addressing the angels - and not the Muslims. And then 15-16 are directed at the Muslims.

First, Muslims did not exist at this time.

They were Arabs.

The term "Muslim" did not appear until the 690s (non-arabic reference) and the first Arabic inscription to refer to "Muslims" was not until just prior to 749.

Further, I must ask - if that is the proper contextual view of that verse - then what is the proper contextual view of this verse:

And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice. (Al Quran 4:4)

Read more:

You must be registered for see links

Is that before or after slaughtering all of the men in the village?

Verses 12 -14*:
And remember when your Lord was inspiring the angels with this: "I am with you: so keep the Believers steadfast. I am now going to fill the hearts of the disbelievers with awe: so smite their necks and beat every joint of their bodies. This is because they have opposed Allah and His Messenger; whoso opposes Allah and His Messenger, surely Allah is very severe for him in retribution. This is the punishment for you: so taste it now: you should also know that there is the torture of Hell for those who deny the Truth.

(*Still cruel, but not work for humans, rather telling of the orders God gave to the angels.)

It is actually not clear, at all, who the order is given to. The first order is clearly to Mohammed to keep the believers steadfast. Then it says that Allah is going to 'awe' the nonbelievers as a preposition for decapitating and bludgeoning the non-believers.

Which is precisely what Mohammed did.

So, clearly, he didn't understand that he wasn't supposed to do that.

But, In Sha Allah - as God willed, it happened - regardless of whose duty it was.

And 15-16*:

O Believers! when you encounter, as an army, the disbelievers in a battle, do not turn your backs on them. Whoso turns his back on such an occasion, except it be as a strategy, or to join another troop of the Believers, shall incur the wrath of Allah: Hell shall be his abode: most wretched is that place of retreat!

(Which specifically addresses the Believers and is in reference to fleeing from battle, which is seen as cowardice in armies across the globe.)

Do you not think it curious that the Koran has paid so much attention to the concept of military action?

And why would I need to fear the wrath of God? Shouldn't I be fearing the safety of my home if I'm being invaded? Shouldn't I be preserving something?

Why do I need to worry about God punishing me if it's patently obvious that the invading army is going to do that just fine without divine intervention?

Unless...

I'm the one invading?

" Therefore when you meet in battle "
" Therefore when you meet in battle "

That was meant for people in battle (i.e who fight not those who are peaceful)

You must be registered for see images

Gee.

A lot of other nations suddenly decided to become peaceful.

I don't know why you even post this
It has nothing with people killing people . This is god final judgment On people who don't believe.It's different from human killing another human .

Then perhaps you need to inform devout Muslims that it is God's duty to do this to me, not theirs.

Believers are not gods they don't have the right to kill unbelievers just because they doesn't believe (What ISIS is doing) god who judge them in the end not human.
And God forbidden muslims To kill peaceful people who doesn't attack them.

Show me the verse.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Allah's Prophet just told the commanders of his armies to Make War.

Are you not a believer?

Is your prophet -wrong?-

By all means - tell Allah that his prophet was wrong. I'm sure you will be judged as a non-believer.

Again this is only meant for the idolaters who fight in battle not the peaceful idolaters. In order to understand a verse you need to read the one before and after!

This verse you posted was after verse 4 ,Which talked about a contract between the idolaters who fight in battle with the believers
The contract was a promise not attack each other for a period of time

"So when the sacred months have passed away" Means when the contract period is over .

I don't know - your prophet just told his armies to make war and to give non-believers the options of conversion, slavery, or death.

Would you blame me for being an 'idolater' who beat Allah's army to such a point that they needed to sue for peace?

Reality check - I'll afford Islam no such quarter.

Again this is meant for the people who fight in battle not the innocent ones who doesn't attack.

Mohammed quite clearly said that the non-believers had the options of conversion, slavery, or death. This was after being told to "make war."

So, let's say I just let the Muslim armies march into my streets without contest. It doesn't really change my options, now does it? Conversion. Slavery. Death.

So, assuming I value my independence from such a state - why would I -not- raise a sword against the invaders?

Its totally different from what ISIS do by killing people who didn't fight they just kill lives because they don't believe.

They are following The Prophet's commands to the letter.

You seem to be having a crisis of faith, my friend, as you clearly don't seem to believe people should do that to each other. Which means you don't believe the words of your prophet - which means you are a non-believer. And you know what Allah thinks about those abhorrent beings.

Unless this was all some religion concocted by the head of the Arab Nation circa 700 AD - who redacted the stories of the man who started the Arab Conquest back to him being a prophet of God distinct from the judeo-christian customs of the Arabs....

Then your immortal soul might be able to find forgiveness.

I swear You just copy and paste without knowing the story behind it .

Rule Number One when dealing with Aim-64C:

I always know more than I let on.

This verse you posted was talking about "The bader battle"
That verse Was giving strategies and ways to fight in the battle

Oh?

So why is it included in the book of Timeless Wisdom that was never created and has always resided in Heaven with Allah?

Unless .... are battles supposed to be a common thing for Muslims? Would these kinds of strategies be how Muslims are expected to fight numerous battles?

This is clearly was not meant for innocent*people and it was about certain group
The verse was about the story of the tired people who came to madina then the prophet let them stay and drink from the camel milk After they recovered
They stole the camels and killed the Patron .

Is it?

Please, show me where this story is told.

If the context is so important to proper understanding - then why is it not in the Koran as revealed to Mohammed?

More importantly - why are you arguing this with me?

You do realize that there are people out there who are currently using these verses in precisely this manner to justify their killing of people?

By all means - go debate them on the merits of their zeal for the Prophet.

When they kill you in the same way - what will those who taught you say? Those who believe the same as you? Or - more importantly - what will they do?

Say that the Islam expansionists dedicated to violence are wrong?

Well that's all well and good... but what happens when they are expanding into our shared abode?

Do you believe that people are allowed to govern themselves? Or is the only proper government the one as outlined in Islam - Sharia law?

You see - this is the problem with "Moderate" Islam. In the end - Islam is the belief in the rule of Islam over people. While Muslims can disagree over how the non-believers should be treated... the number of Muslims that believe Islam should -not- reign supreme in the nations in which they live is relatively few and far between.

Compared to the Christian population - this is a considerably different mentality. Christians are very used to the idea of separate religious and political structures. In many regards - this is because Christianity is far more divided ideologically than Islam is - do we put a Catholic in charge of the nation or a Baptist? Will the Presbyterians revolt if we put the Baptists in charge? If we go with sort of democratic republic - then what the hell is the difference with what we have, now?

There's just no point as the focus of Christianity is not on a prescribed theocratic rule.

If anything - Christianity is biased against theocratic control. Jesus was rebelling against the Pharisee who had become corrupt and strayed from a righteous path. His teachings directly conflict with the notion that any one man has authority over another or that God holds any one man as superior to another. Further, Christianity's earlier history was rooted in conflict with the Roman empire and the Jewish authorities - thus it was almost anarchic in its worldly context.

Thats somewhat true
Quran surah's came out one by one on times of events .some of the things that were okay became forbidden later on like drinking sake ,marrying many women (in Aljahlia it used to be okay to Marry dozen of women before islam)


But again there isn't anything in Quran that tell people To kill innocent lives who does not fight you (believers or disbelievers)

Every verse you posted was talking about killing certain people who either fights in battles or attack .

Then, according to your view of the Koran - it is a useless collection of writings as it so contextual as to be specific revelations to Mohammed that expire almost immediately.

Which I agree with you to an extent. The Prophet, as the scriptures refer to him, was a genius - endowed with the Eye of the Dragon/Morning Star/Lucifer, to be sure. He was a tactical and strategic genius who knew the hearts of men and how to elicit action from them.

As such - the Koran could be considered a collection of his insights into how to 'get things done' - how to inspire his soldiers, how to evade persecution from authorities - how to wage a successful conquest.

But divine, he was not.

That came, later, as a redaction. The Arab nation needed a prophet to distinguish them from the line of Isaac. The Prophet would also need a book.

Much as Jesus being a divine being was, in my opinion, a mostly dogmatic redaction. Jesus was simply there to save the Jews from the oppression of the Pharisee - to warn them of the corruption that occurs within religious institutions and to return people to the path of discovering/serving God as opposed to serving the rule of the Pharisee. He was innocent of the charges the Pharisee leveled against him in the Roman Court - and as such created a stir amidst the Jewish population that forever undermined the authority of the Pharisee.

I suppose within a certain context, it is spiritual salvation. Had the Jews continued as they were - the Pharisee were using the teachings of Abraham, Moses, etc to turn the process of worship into financial and political power/control. Thus, those who followed that path were not truly walking a path of heavenly righteousness.

But if you take my interpretation - the power and authority structure of most Churches begins to look much the same as the way the Pharisee were doing things... and we can't have our savior get in the way of telling people what to do, now can we?

This is a prediction before the end of the world
Its about a battle between some muslims and some jew (not all jew but some fighters)

Its not saying kill all jew ,but its talking about the prediction of that event

What is the Islamic version of the End of the World?

Should not all people be under the rule of Islam?

Why would rocks be shouting that there are Jews to be killed? No distinction is made in the chapter about it only being 'fighters.'

That is your interpretation rendered invalid by the Prophet who commanded his armies to make war.

This is not Bukhari (8:387)

This is bukhai (8:387)
"Narrated Anas bin Malik: We used to pray with the Prophet and some of us used to place the ends of their clothes at the place of prostration because of scorching heat."
As you can see this hadith is totally different from the one you posted Hopefully you did not just get that from unreliable source .You know like facebook or something .

Perhaps my source had the wrong numbers - but a wonderful tool called a search engine works wonders:

This is going to be a massive link, since it includes an embedded set of search flags...

You must be registered for see links

To quote Islamic Hadith (English Translation) (No page numbers given):

1.387: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped bu Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun bin Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Alah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

same as above
Either you mistook the numbers or changed the entire text
Or some google translation that changed the real meaning.

You must be registered for see links

"Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist. "

I'm not sure why the numbers are off, to be honest. I see multiple sources using the same listing - a search for the phrase returns that it is, indeed, in the Hadith - but why the numbers are off, I don't know.

The other is from Ishaq 327 as opposed to 484.

You must be registered for see links

"Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.' [...] Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured."

________

If the people of kufr (not muslim)were peaceful (not fighters) or muahed

its forbidden to kill them and not just kill but also may not attack his wealth and not on display, and there is no difference between the Christian and the Jewish and others in the correct, from the hadeeth of Abdullah bin AMR: the killer of promising(promising =peaceful non muslim) does not smell paradise that welcomes its fragrance is of 40 years. Narrated by Al-bukhaari and nesaee
عبد الله بن عمرو رضي الله عنهما قال: من قتل معاهداً لم يرح رائحة الجنة وإن ريحها توجد من ""مسيرة أربعين عاماً. رواه البخاري، وفي النسائي وغيره

others from the hadeeth of Abu Bakra said: the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: "who kills a promising doesn't go to heaven."

من حديث أبي بكرة رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: من قتل معاهداً في ""غير كنهه حرم الله عليه الجنة"

You must be registered for see links

The Hadith over-ride the Fatwa.

Of course, the Fatwa are necessary because no one reading this shit can find any guidance whatsoever unless it is to rally an army and invade a neighboring country.

Which is probably why that is what Islam has chosen, historically, to do.

Ehm...

The U.S robbed the whole world when they went off the Gold standard.

Correction:

The U.S. committed suicide when it went off the Gold Standard.

We already did

I can't include the video in the quote because I intend to use my one allotted video in this post, and yours isn't it.

The problem with your "we already nuked someone" nonsense is that it is purely that.

You must be registered for see images

OMG, Nukes at an air show!

... No - if you understand the basic fluid dynamics that go into the formation of a 'mushroom cloud' - you'll realize that they form from almost any explosion - including those of many conventional weapons (particularly when secondary combustibles are set alight, giving a longer duration to the column of heated air).

Pretty much yes .

To them their way is the true islam and to us our way is the true islam .

When their way is to kill those who do not believe in the true Islam... how much longer is this going to remain a distinction?

But just because there are many of them doesn't necessary prove its the right way of islam.It may look that most muslims are like them that because the media focus on the loud ones those kind of muslims (its understandable since there is no reason for media to show the normal muslims)

I have seen those kind of people in my country a lot .any sane person who reads quran can tell their actions are way too extreme of quran

[video=youtube;qRsyDGKQnlk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRsyDGKQnlk[/video]

Any sane person who reads the Koran finds a different religion.

For an example :i remember one guy at the street hit my aunt with a stick telling her to cover her hands (her whole body is covered ,but according to him she is **** for showing her hand)

And this is not how women should be treated.

Now, if your aunt wished to cover herself entirely - sure, by all means. But just because I can't keep my eyes from wandering and my instincts under control does not mean I should blame a woman for wearing as much clothing as I do. And if I can't keep my instincts under control - she has every right to arm and defend herself the same as any man does.

Well, at least, according to the ways of God's created nature.

Not according to Sharia Law.

*shrug*

Like I said. Any sane person who reads the Koran finds another religion.

Well - I should say that there is the exception of those who have never been exposed to anything -but- the Koran.

It's actually kind of interesting to watch sensible Muslims who have never really read scripture outside of the Koran get a hold of a Bible. It's neat because Muslims tend to hold a reverence for scripture that most westerners simply don't have - and they finally get a hold of scripture that tells a story that makes some amount of sense.

That lasts until they have a crisis of faith on the spot because something that is not in the Koran is appearing so much more engaging and dynamic than the Koran.

It's like what happens when a battered wife finds a man who actually respects her and she has no idea how to react because her husband would beat the hell out of her for leaving him but the guy who actually respects her is giving her what she never realized she was missing.

I mean - you want the Koran - take all of my internet posts and jumble them together from when I was in High School. That's the depth and consistency of the Koran.

Then take my internet forum quotes from when I was 22 and say that any conflicts with my earliest forum rants are over-written by my later forum rants.

The only difference is that, even though I call for the nuking of just about anything that I find irritating, I have an inherent reverence for women. Otherwise you've basically got the same mentality and depth.

Honestly, it doesn't do the man who started the Arab conquest justice in terms of his leadership brilliance (despite what I would call very horrid aims). But that's what happens when you redact a warlord into a divine prophet and build a religion around him.

 

[Ashflura]

This is going to be long, and some will find it quite offensive.
To a degree, yes.

However, Islam is a notoriously difficult religion to criticize because of its culture of killing people who criticize it.

Take the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Contrary to popular portrayal - this is -nothing- like the rift between Protestants and Catholics. The debate boils down to whether the Caliph (ruler of the Islamic State) should be individuals with a hereditary claim to The Prophet (Imams) or people who are 'best qualified for the job' (and who determines that?)

Which is, interestingly enough, one of the few practical things about running a state that is left out of the Koran. If Mohammed was God's prophet and Islam is what God prescribed for the people of the Earth ... then who rules after Mohammed is gone?

Apparently whoever can beat the disagreement out of Muslims. Which is par for the course.

Nothing like it at all.
The rift between the Shia and Sunni is simple, but becomes grey as soon as the impact on societies (and people's own prejudices) gets added to the equation.
It's essentially a historical argument, with one side deviating from the scriptures and the other seeking to preserve the scriptures from any deviance. And depending on what side you approach it from, or from a totally different perspective (one like yours that does not care about Islam altogether), you have different solutions to the problem.

The question about 'who rules after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is gone' is a simple one if you're versed with Islamic history and sentiment.
After the death of the Prophet, you had a period of grief where even the strongest of men, Umar ibn Al-Khattab swore to kill anyone that denied the Prophet was alive (its an expression, don't get literal). Abu Bakr, the Prophet's best friend, and the first man to accept Islam called everyone to recall:

"O people, verily whoever worshipped Muhammad, behold! Muhammad is indeed dead. But whoever worships God, behold! God is alive and will never die."

And then followed it up with a verse of the Quran:

"And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Many Messengers have gone before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?" [3:144]

And being of the first to return to reality, among other virtues the people saw him as 'the best qualified for the job'.

And if you follow the period until the end of fourth caliph, you'll find similar humble selections of who should be Caliph. And it wasn't someone hated by the people, nor randomly selected, but one who was known by a large amount of people, one who had no agenda to hide, and most importantly feared God, that if he screwed anyone over, he would be held accountable for a decision.

Problem:

The Koran HAS no context.

It is arranged longest verse to shortest verse and not in any chronological order. If context were important, it would be arranged in chronological order with chapters being relative to narrative topic. This is not how the Koran is arranged. Thus, it can only be interpreted that context has absolutely nothing to do with the revelations.

Further:

You must be registered for see links

This is a little bit different from my own argument - but is similar in spirit.

The Koran is timeless. It has always existed with God. Right?

Thus, it simply can't be contextual.

There is one scenario in which it could be considered contextual - and that is if you see the Koran as a sort of 'shadow' cast by the wisdom of God through the life of Mohammed. In this sense - the Koran could be seen as how God's wisdom directed Mohammed within a limited fragment of time.

But this means that the Koran is -not- "In heaven with God" and it means that its practical use to Islam in today's context is severely limited.

Thus, we either accept that the Koran is the unabridged word of God that is timeless and will forever be applicable (unless it contradicts itself...) - or we accept that the Koran is an interesting look into the mind of a sociopath with little other merit beyond that.

Problem: You think the Qur'an has no context.

It is contextual in the fact every ayah (verse) was revealed at a time that was relevant to its revelation and timeless in the aspect many appropriate verses can be applied to parallels in history in terms of corruption and falsehood. Do you recall the phrase: "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it", by Edmund Burke, an 18th century Philosopher on Hitler repeating Napoleon's mistake on their invasion of Russia?

And in particular you have two main types of chapters: Makkan revelations and Medina revelations.

Makkan chapters for building up the faith and hearts.
Medina chapters for law building.

Any further discussion on this topic will go down specific routes, some I'm either not qualified to speak about, haven't studied or not confident enough in.

First, Muslims did not exist at this time.

They were Arabs.

The term "Muslim" did not appear until the 690s (non-arabic reference) and the first Arabic inscription to refer to "Muslims" was not until just prior to 749.

Further, I must ask - if that is the proper contextual view of that verse - then what is the proper contextual view of this verse:

And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice. (Al Quran 4:4)

Read more:

You must be registered for see links

Is that before or after slaughtering all of the men in the village?

That's the equivalent of saying the word 'President' wasn't around until Americans wanted to declare independence. The term was coined to set apart the Muslims from every other faith at the time of their identity forming.
That's not to say every person prior to Muhammad, who believed in the submission to no God but God, wasn't a Muslim. Ignore the religion you know and associate your hatred with today. The root of Islam is that monotheistic concept, and has been preached throughout history (timeless).

'Further, I must ask - if that is the proper contextual view of that verse - then what is the proper contextual view of this verse:'

This train can go on all day. The context example of Surah Al-Anfal that I prepared for you was not to ultimately discredit the interpretation of the verses you highlighted, but rather to stop you entirely from preaching an area you haven't studied properly under the right guidance. Because otherwise, you can keep presenting me with verses...as you have and unfortunately I don't have time for that. And on top of that, you didn't even bring light to your error, rather wanted to quickly redirect the argument to another verse.

It is actually not clear, at all, who the order is given to. The first order is clearly to Mohammed to keep the believers steadfast. Then it says that Allah is going to 'awe' the nonbelievers as a preposition for decapitating and bludgeoning the non-believers.

Which is precisely what Mohammed did.

So, clearly, he didn't understand that he wasn't supposed to do that.

But, In Sha Allah - as God willed, it happened - regardless of whose duty it was.

Because you do not understand Arabic. For example, the difference between someone in particular being addressed, rather than a group of people in second person, is the addition of 'ka' to the end of the words.

Do you not think it curious that the Koran has paid so much attention to the concept of military action?

And why would I need to fear the wrath of God? Shouldn't I be fearing the safety of my home if I'm being invaded? Shouldn't I be preserving something?

Why do I need to worry about God punishing me if it's patently obvious that the invading army is going to do that just fine without divine intervention?

Unless...

I'm the one invading?

Recall the battle was 313 men, with no weaponry or armour, up against 950 complete with horses all stocked. What assurance do these people have of succeeding in war? Especially to be able to deal the particular damage prescribed in the Qur'an to the angels?

 

[Aim64C]

Nothing like it at all.
The rift between the Shia and Sunni is simple, but becomes grey as soon as the impact on societies (and people's own prejudices) gets added to the equation.
It's essentially a historical argument, with one side deviating from the scriptures and the other seeking to preserve the scriptures from any deviance. And depending on what side you approach it from, or from a totally different perspective (one like yours that does not care about Islam altogether), you have different solutions to the problem.

The question about 'who rules after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is gone' is a simple one if you're versed with Islamic history and sentiment.
After the death of the Prophet, you had a period of grief where even the strongest of men, Umar ibn Al-Khattab swore to kill anyone that denied the Prophet was alive (its an expression, don't get literal). Abu Bakr, the Prophet's best friend, and the first man to accept Islam called everyone to recall:

"O people, verily whoever worshipped Muhammad, behold! Muhammad is indeed dead. But whoever worships God, behold! God is alive and will never die."

And then followed it up with a verse of the Quran:

"And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Many Messengers have gone before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?" [3:144]

And being of the first to return to reality, among other virtues the people saw him as 'the best qualified for the job'.

And if you follow the period until the end of fourth caliph, you'll find similar humble selections of who should be Caliph. And it wasn't someone hated by the people, nor randomly selected, but one who was known by a large amount of people, one who had no agenda to hide, and most importantly feared God, that if he screwed anyone over, he would be held accountable for a decision.

You must be registered for see links

Well. It sounds like you've settled it, then. Fourteen centuries of Islamic infighting settled with a few paragraphs and an irrelevant quote from the Koran.

Problem: You think the Qur'an has no context.

Reality:

There IS no context to the Koran.

It is contextual in the fact every ayah (verse) was revealed at a time that was relevant to its revelation and timeless in the aspect many appropriate verses can be applied to parallels in history in terms of corruption and falsehood. Do you recall the phrase: "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it", by Edmund Burke, an 18th century Philosopher on Hitler repeating Napoleon's mistake on their invasion of Russia?

And in particular you have two main types of chapters: Makkan revelations and Medina revelations.

Makkan chapters for building up the faith and hearts.
Medina chapters for law building.

Any further discussion on this topic will go down specific routes, some I'm either not qualified to speak about, haven't studied or not confident enough in.

You must be registered for see links

You simply can't make the contextual argument for the Koran. Ever.

First, it is not intended to have historical context. If the commands issued within it were supposed to have historical context, they would appear with their history.

This problem becomes even worse when you realize that absolutely no one knows the exact chronological order of the Koran - or exactly to what history each verse should be applied. All but a few of the verses that make specific references to events have been assigned 'proper historical context' via a process of redaction from scholars.

Which means the historical context is neither contained in the Koran, nor within the Hadith. The best it could be compared to is a Fatwa - but it's even lower than a Fatwa since one must go well outside the realm of classical scripture to attain 'proper historical context.'

And then what is the proper historical context?

"Well, it only applied to this battle because of this right here, and..."

Really?

So why put the command into the timeless word of God WITHOUT the KEY phrase of: "This only applies here?"

I don't know, either. Muslim scholars don't know. No one knows. Probably not even God knows, because he had nothing to do with it.

And then if you want to take the "whole of the Koran in context" of itself... you have every reason for a rational human being to avoid it like the plague.

That's the equivalent of saying the word 'President' wasn't around until Americans wanted to declare independence. The term was coined to set apart the Muslims from every other faith at the time of their identity forming.
That's not to say every person prior to Muhammad, who believed in the submission to no God but God, wasn't a Muslim. Ignore the religion you know and associate your hatred with today. The root of Islam is that monotheistic concept, and has been preached throughout history (timeless).

[video=youtube;-_PtTXEBPFU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_PtTXEBPFU[/video]

You'll find that pretty interesting.

Basically, Islam was created by Abd al-Malik for the Arab state.

Mohammed, Islam, Muslim, Mecca - none of these became a subject of discussion until after 691.

'Further, I must ask - if that is the proper contextual view of that verse - then what is the proper contextual view of this verse:'

This train can go on all day. The context example of Surah Al-Anfal that I prepared for you was not to ultimately discredit the interpretation of the verses you highlighted, but rather to stop you entirely from preaching an area you haven't studied properly under the right guidance. Because otherwise, you can keep presenting me with verses...as you have and unfortunately I don't have time for that. And on top of that, you didn't even bring light to your error, rather wanted to quickly redirect the argument to another verse.

Under the proper guidance?

Really?

"You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't been properly guided in your understanding of this most glorious and peaceful religion. Only a few of us properly educated can know what it means."

Well, that's great. Unfortunately for you - the people who "know what they are talking about" are being slaughtered by those who don't - and those same people are slaughtering people like me - who want nothing to do with the religion created for the arabs.

The problem with your argument is very simple.

Mohammed disagreed with your interpretation (or the man the name mohammed was redacted to).

His followers disagreed with your interpretation.

His brothers disagreed with your interpretation.

Centuries of Muslim scholars and Caliphs disagree with your 'proper guidance.'

So who has the correct interpretation?

Because you do not understand Arabic. For example, the difference between someone in particular being addressed, rather than a group of people in second person, is the addition of 'ka' to the end of the words.

Neither did the people writing the two Koran heralded as being 2 of the 4 Uthmanic Koran.

Remember - Rule 1?

I always know more than I let on.

Recall the battle was 313 men, with no weaponry or armour, up against 950 complete with horses all stocked. What assurance do these people have of succeeding in war? Especially to be able to deal the particular damage prescribed in the Qur'an to the angels?

Oh?

I see no mention of the soldiers being unarmed.

There's no historical context there.

Is this supposed to be the account of some miracle?

You must be registered for see links

Apparently, Yes.

The unarmed Muslims shot arrows and produced blades.

Send down angels to terrify the enemy army? Or just be so brutal to the enemy army that they become terrified by your zeal.

*shrug*

Makes little difference in the end.

 

[Scooby Doo]

This problem becomes even worse when you realize that absolutely no one knows the exact chronological order of the Koran - or exactly to what history each verse should be applied. All but a few of the verses that make specific references to events have been assigned 'proper historical context' via a process of redaction from scholars.

Then please show me the proof that all the 'peaceful' verses are from the earlier periods, and all the 'violent' ones are from later on- and therefore the latter supposed to abrogate the previous ones. Coz other than that, it's nothing but assumption.

And not everyone accepts that the Quran abrogates itself.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Aim64C]

Then please show me the proof that all the 'peaceful' verses are from the earlier periods, and all the 'violent' ones are from later on- and therefore the latter supposed to abrogate the previous ones. Coz other than that, it's nothing but assumption.

You must be registered for see links

It boils down to theological debate.

Although it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what the Koran is about:

[video=youtube;jHmsL0p6jnI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmsL0p6jnI[/video]

It also doesn't help the historical context argument that the Koran makes multiple self-proclamations of being complete and being fully explained as it is.

If you make the historical context claim - then you clearly don't believe the Koran knows what it is talking about.

Since I don't believe a shred of it, I have no problems arguing all interpretations of it, including blatantly heretical ones.

And not everyone accepts that the Quran abrogates itself.

You must be registered for see links

Then they can't read:

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path."

16:101 "When We exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, 'You are making this up.' Most of them do not understand."

They can argue against it all they like. That is the wonderful thing about debating Islam - the Koran is right next to God in terms of authority; carrying a weight like no other scripture in the history of mankind.

So if Muslims want to argue with the revelation of Allah that Allah can abrogate previous revelations - then they can go right ahead and suffer the fate of non-believers.

Makes no difference to me.

But it's telling that a non-believer can perfectly interpret their scripture in exactly the way Mohammed and his followers did yet the people who try to distort the religion to fit their worldly views have so much trouble understanding what the point of Islam is.

The point of Islam is, quite blatantly, to subjugate the world under Arab rule. That's it. That's the Koran in its whole literary context. A five year old could figure this out.

The only people who seem confused about it are the ones who want to use it for something other than totalitarian rule.

In which case, they are shit out of luck because it has skimp offerings in that regard.

 

[YowYan]

That's rare. A decent thread without any short, unelaborated posts. I'm learning here xd

 

[Scooby Doo]

You must be registered for see links

It boils down to theological debate.

Then why are you talking as if it was a fact that all peaceful verses were written earlier- and thus, supposedly abrogated by the violent ones that are written later? Because in the timetable you posted, the 2nd surat, that says "there shall be no compulsion in religion", is from the Medina period- that is ,a later one.

Since I don't believe a shred of it, I have no problems arguing all interpretations of it, including blatantly heretical ones.

I'm not religious either, I just like to check both sides of the coin Lol

Then they can't read:

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path."

16:101 "When We exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, 'You are making this up.' Most of them do not understand."

They can argue against it all they like. That is the wonderful thing about debating Islam - the Koran is right next to God in terms of authority; carrying a weight like no other scripture in the history of mankind.

So if Muslims want to argue with the revelation of Allah that Allah can abrogate previous revelations - then they can go right ahead and suffer the fate of non-believers.

Makes no difference to me.




.

Have you read the link I posted? It explains rather well why the abrogation as you explain, is not correct.

As for the hadith, not everything is authentic. Coz if you accept them as such, do you accept the miracles in them as well? I doubt.

Of course I'm not in the position to decide which ones to accept and not- but neither you are. You say it doesn't make a difference to you- alright, then no point in arguing about it.

 

[Floydical]

Americans take this kind of thing personally and usually believe something needs to be done about it. But any US involvement in affairs such as this only breeds sympathizers for the extremists and adds numbers to their ranks. Americans might have the luxury of believing we have the right to get involved in such foreign affairs, but our superiority complex breeds hate and loathing around the world.

And people wonder why half the world hates us?

 

[ᖇ α z m α η]

ISIS is the final product of what USA did the 10+ last years.

Wherever they put their feet they steal, kill and destroy everything to force their ideologies, capitalism and demoncracy.

Their imperialism has placed the equivalent of five tons of explosives on the head of every person on the planet.

Agreed .​

 

[YowYan]

@Aim64C;

You can tell me more about the islam and its origins than any of my muslim friends. Yet, to me, it seems like you steer the topic in a way that justifies u.s.a.'s meddling in the middle east and pretty much globally. It's just what I feel from your words, no offense. It's like you ignore the neocons from your country, that meet up with the ISIS, arm them, finance them, and create chaos to benefit their agenda. I think the gullible religious extremists have strings attached leading back to american neocons. Same thing for Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Irak, Palestina, etc. Aren't we supposed to track all the events occuring back to the original perpetrator and not the muslim pawns? I do not study these topics in depth, so feel free to enlighten me.

Rand Paul: "600 tons of weapons given to syrian rebels last year made ISIS stronger."

Hmm...

 

[Aim64C]

Then why are you talking as if it was a fact that all peaceful verses were written earlier- and thus, supposedly abrogated by the violent ones that are written later? Because in the timetable you posted, the 2nd surat, that says "there shall be no compulsion in religion", is from the Medina period- that is ,a later one.

I'm not sure what your grasp of spoken English is - but the video I posted reinforced this point quite well.

According to the Hadith - the last revelation Mohammed had was Chapter 9.

You must be registered for see links

9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

I ... suppose ... you could translate that to mean "No compulsion of religion" - since the concept of paying a Jizya and living as a second class citizen is allowed...

But... that isn't what most westerners interpret to mean "no compulsion." I'm not sure if that is what Mohammed meant when he said it... but it doesn't really matter since God said that earlier revelations are replaced with better revelations. So if the earlier revelation meant "no compulsion" - then the better revelation meant "They don't -have- to become Muslims, they just have to yield everything to Muslims and pay a special tax. Unless you need money - then fight them for their money."

Which is precisely what Mustafa did.

I'm not religious either, I just like to check both sides of the coin Lol

I classify myself as spiritual on the general spectrum of Christianity - but I'm of the opinion that the church political infrastructure has become a part of the antichrist that has been warned of. I also disagree with many of the literal interpretations of the bible. I look at it all as man's attempt to document both history and wondrous events in history (perhaps genuine miracles - perhaps accounts of something so advanced we can only begin to glimpse a scientific explanation).

I think one of the biggest mistakes that has been made is the belief that 'prophets' and other divinely inspired individuals are a sort of 'thing of the past.'

Have you read the link I posted? It explains rather well why the abrogation as you explain, is not correct.

I have.

Bluntly - the obvious explanation for their dilemma is that the Koran is a redaction.

The fact that 'partial' Korans with differences amongst them from the first few hundred years of Islam exist would indicate that the verses they use to say that the Koran doesn't change and is complete/perfect is, clearly, not the case.

But even if we assume that the Koran we have today is complete as it was intended - then we still run into the problem of the Koran proclaiming itself to be clear and having every detail expounded - yet here it requires interpretation to be understood properly.

Their attempts to navigate around the issue of "verse" simply fall flat - since the revelations of the Koran are miracles and signs within themselves - which people are supposed to take meaning from.

Therefor the later miraculous sign from which to derive meaning as written in the Koran is 'better' than the earlier one.

Since the Koran was written to establish the state of Islam and solidify control over all aspects of culture - it makes perfect sense that the "you make this up" was in there. These lines were added after/during the arab civil war that established Islam as the state religion - or were redacted into later Koran prints by scholars who were using writings from that time.

Even within the context of a 'real religion' - the argument that it was intended to apply to non-believers falls flat, as well.

If I don't believe the Koran to be divine - then why in the hell would I pay any attention to its self-insistence that it is (or its ability to predict that I would be skeptical of it?) The statement is clearly meant to quell dissension within Islam - it is mean to apply to the believer and beseech that he seek further understanding (from a book that is clear and expounded upon in detail....).

As for the hadith, not everything is authentic. Coz if you accept them as such, do you accept the miracles in them as well? I doubt.

Of course I'm not in the position to decide which ones to accept and not- but neither you are. You say it doesn't make a difference to you- alright, then no point in arguing about it.

The Hadith are akin to classical scripture as westerners are concerned - they tell stories and are accounts of The Prophet and his exploits.

There are your core Hadith that comprise something akin to the Bible in their weight/influence.

The Koran really has no western scriptural equivalent. People in the west simply don't ascribe any amount of importance to scripture the same as Arabs will the Koran (and many non-arabs, in this day and age). Perhaps the Ten Commandments in terms of scriptural weight - but nothing really reaches the same cultural importance (except, perhaps, sports leaderboards).

There are some things that make a difference to me - and some things that don't.

My point is a rather sharp one.

Islam is incompatible with western ideology. The concept of 'freedom of religion' does not exist within Islam. It is impossible, even amongst the peaceful muslims, for Islam to be a peaceful religion - as I said, a five year old could perfectly interpret the scripture the same way centuries of Arab conquest and subjugation did.

As such - it has no place within western cultures and should be removed. To the last individual.

Because how many of these peaceful muslims are going to war against their own kind when my daughter is taken from me - or my son's wife is taken to bear children for the muslim militant who killed my son?

Of course not.

They will continue to tout that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is being wrongfully interpreted even as they are being forced into Sharia law. They will continue to pass out the Koran and turn a blind eye to those in their mosques raising funds to send to groups like ISIS. They will wonder why their son ran off to join a foreign war before coming back here to begin pillaging the neighborhood.

I am not blind to history.

Those who wish to preserve their freedom will ready themselves for war against Islam. The next Dark Age is upon us, and the same fires that swept through the post-roman world will sweep through the post-American world.

The concept of multiculturalism is nice - it's wonderful - but it has its practical limitations. If the culture is one of conquest and subjugation - then being 'multi' with it doesn't really work. It's like putting the rabbits in with the garden - or the fox in the hen house.

 

[Avani]

As for the hadith, not everything is authentic. Coz if you accept them as such, do you accept the miracles in them as well? I doubt

Eh? Do you mean that not everyone agrees on the Hadith to the same degree, or consider them weaker than other sources or do you mean that most people do not put much faith in it in the first place because of miracles?

For- Why would it even matter if anyone else believes in the miracle or not if they do not use it for a ruling for themselves? They are just pointing at a source and it's one of sources for Islamic ruling as I know- Quran, Hadith( statements from Prophet's life) , Qiyas ( analogy based on examples of his life) and Ijma ( consensus)..

I may be wrong of course seeing it's been almost a decade since I read about it.( and only in context of Muslim personal law here.)

What did I miss?

 

[YowYan]

Spoiler

I'm not sure what your grasp of spoken English is - but the video I posted reinforced this point quite well.

According to the Hadith - the last revelation Mohammed had was Chapter 9.

You must be registered for see links

9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

I ... suppose ... you could translate that to mean "No compulsion of religion" - since the concept of paying a Jizya and living as a second class citizen is allowed...

But... that isn't what most westerners interpret to mean "no compulsion." I'm not sure if that is what Mohammed meant when he said it... but it doesn't really matter since God said that earlier revelations are replaced with better revelations. So if the earlier revelation meant "no compulsion" - then the better revelation meant "They don't -have- to become Muslims, they just have to yield everything to Muslims and pay a special tax. Unless you need money - then fight them for their money."

Which is precisely what Mustafa did.



I classify myself as spiritual on the general spectrum of Christianity - but I'm of the opinion that the church political infrastructure has become a part of the antichrist that has been warned of. I also disagree with many of the literal interpretations of the bible. I look at it all as man's attempt to document both history and wondrous events in history (perhaps genuine miracles - perhaps accounts of something so advanced we can only begin to glimpse a scientific explanation).

I think one of the biggest mistakes that has been made is the belief that 'prophets' and other divinely inspired individuals are a sort of 'thing of the past.'



I have.

Bluntly - the obvious explanation for their dilemma is that the Koran is a redaction.

The fact that 'partial' Korans with differences amongst them from the first few hundred years of Islam exist would indicate that the verses they use to say that the Koran doesn't change and is complete/perfect is, clearly, not the case.

But even if we assume that the Koran we have today is complete as it was intended - then we still run into the problem of the Koran proclaiming itself to be clear and having every detail expounded - yet here it requires interpretation to be understood properly.

Their attempts to navigate around the issue of "verse" simply fall flat - since the revelations of the Koran are miracles and signs within themselves - which people are supposed to take meaning from.

Therefor the later miraculous sign from which to derive meaning as written in the Koran is 'better' than the earlier one.

Since the Koran was written to establish the state of Islam and solidify control over all aspects of culture - it makes perfect sense that the "you make this up" was in there. These lines were added after/during the arab civil war that established Islam as the state religion - or were redacted into later Koran prints by scholars who were using writings from that time.

Even within the context of a 'real religion' - the argument that it was intended to apply to non-believers falls flat, as well.

If I don't believe the Koran to be divine - then why in the hell would I pay any attention to its self-insistence that it is (or its ability to predict that I would be skeptical of it?) The statement is clearly meant to quell dissension within Islam - it is mean to apply to the believer and beseech that he seek further understanding (from a book that is clear and expounded upon in detail....).



The Hadith are akin to classical scripture as westerners are concerned - they tell stories and are accounts of The Prophet and his exploits.

There are your core Hadith that comprise something akin to the Bible in their weight/influence.

The Koran really has no western scriptural equivalent. People in the west simply don't ascribe any amount of importance to scripture the same as Arabs will the Koran (and many non-arabs, in this day and age). Perhaps the Ten Commandments in terms of scriptural weight - but nothing really reaches the same cultural importance (except, perhaps, sports leaderboards).

There are some things that make a difference to me - and some things that don't.

My point is a rather sharp one.

Islam is incompatible with western ideology. The concept of 'freedom of religion' does not exist within Islam. It is impossible, even amongst the peaceful muslims, for Islam to be a peaceful religion - as I said, a five year old could perfectly interpret the scripture the same way centuries of Arab conquest and subjugation did.

As such - it has no place within western cultures and should be removed. To the last individual.

Because how many of these peaceful muslims are going to war against their own kind when my daughter is taken from me - or my son's wife is taken to bear children for the muslim militant who killed my son?

Of course not.

They will continue to tout that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is being wrongfully interpreted even as they are being forced into Sharia law. They will continue to pass out the Koran and turn a blind eye to those in their mosques raising funds to send to groups like ISIS. They will wonder why their son ran off to join a foreign war before coming back here to begin pillaging the neighborhood.

I am not blind to history.

Those who wish to preserve their freedom will ready themselves for war against Islam. The next Dark Age is upon us, and the same fires that swept through the post-roman world will sweep through the post-American world.

The concept of multiculturalism is nice - it's wonderful - but it has its practical limitations. If the culture is one of conquest and subjugation - then being 'multi' with it doesn't really work. It's like putting the rabbits in with the garden - or the fox in the hen house.

We'll stay in the dark ages as long as we avoid the core of every global issue. For example; The 'ferguson, missouri' riots have sparked debates on racial matters but that's another failure of society. The REAL issue here is police brutality and the fascist nation that slowly shaves away at your constitutional rights. If african-americans can be treated like this, it affects all of you americans in the end. You should destroy all categorizations of people and unite to see the light at the end of the dark ages. As long as we stay divided, our owners stay our owners.

 

[Avani]

@Aim64C;

You can tell me more about the islam and its origins than any of my muslim friends. Yet, to me, it seems like you steer the topic in a way that justifies u.s.a.'s meddling in the middle east and pretty much globally. It's just what I feel from your words, no offense. It's like you ignore the neocons from your country, that meet up with the ISIS, arm them, finance them, and create chaos to benefit their agenda. I think the gullible religious extremists have strings attached leading back to american neocons. Same thing for Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Irak, Palestina, etc. Aren't we supposed to track all the events occuring back to the original perpetrator and not the muslim pawns? I do not study these topics in depth, so feel free to enlighten me.

As much as I get annoyed at USA for meddling in my neighborhood or in my country's affairs, I am not sure if you truly understand the threat extremists pose.

I have no idea what US Policy makers were smoking when they decided to use "pawns" who had their own brain, ideals, ambitions and purposes. They probably were too blind and thinking about business advantages( arm deals, oil , reconstruction), or were too arrogant to think they could handle anything and be the ultimate power. They did benefit on many occasions or did get their way- that's also true. But make no mistake- ambitious and zealous religious extremists with political and other interests of their own are not mere pawns who won't move now when they are already armed and organized.

So track all you want and hope this time around US and its allies learn their lesson and stop the future meddling, but recognize the threat too.

 

[Aim64C]

@Aim64C;

You can tell me more about the islam and its origins than any of my muslim friends. Yet, to me, it seems like you steer the topic in a way that justifies u.s.a.'s meddling in the middle east and pretty much globally. It's just what I feel from your words, no offense. It's like you ignore the neocons from your country, that meet up with the ISIS, arm them, finance them, and create chaos to benefit their agenda. I think the gullible religious extremists have strings attached leading back to american neocons. Same thing for Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Irak, Palestina, etc. Aren't we supposed to track all the events occuring back to the original perpetrator and not the muslim pawns? I do not study these topics in depth, so feel free to enlighten me.

My viewpoint is a rather 'messy' one.

Basically - most of our federal officials are guilty of treason and should be summarily executed, along with the first four tiers of democrat and republican party leadership. And their families out to one vector along with the family dog.

I'm being deliberately ridiculous there - but the point is that these people have become exceptionally entrenched in power and the quest to acquire more of it - despite having none of the discipline necessary to wield that power.

The problem with Islam is one that needed no help from us. ISIS, or a group like them, would have come to power at some point in time. Our involvement may have decided which group, specifically, succeeded insofar as they have - and accelerated the time schedule - but it was only a matter of time before these groups started to gain more traction.

The problem with the U.S. has just been one of progressive insanity.

For whatever reason, many economists back in the 50s and even 60s believed in the practicality and efficiency of centralized planning. Probably because the USSR seemed to be such a thriving and productive atmosphere. Thus, it was believed necessary to fight the Russians everywhere we could to strain their resources.

The CIA was given hideous amounts of foreign authority and began selecting various groups and nations to arm if they agreed to fight the Russians.

When Russia invaded Afghanistan during their attempts to get Chechnya to get with the program - we funded anyone willing to pull a trigger in the direction of the Russians. At least, at the time, the CIA did a fairly decent job of choosing people who were willing to fight.

Unlike now...

Anyway - this all continued up until the USSR collapsed.

Then the CIA was gutted. Issues like Iran-Contra and Watergate (a story broke by the CIA - which maintained a lot of intel on DC's antics...) left a very sour taste in the mouth of politicians - who ruthlessly destroyed funding for the CIA.

While I have to say I support the ending of programs meant to fund opposition elements - the problem is that many of these programs were tied in with human intelligence resources. These were informants we had embedded into groups like AQ - we had active reports coming out of Iran, Iraq, and many other places. These should have been kept in-tact. They take decades to build and are exceptionally fragile.

Which is why we essentially lost any and all influence over many of these groups - or even just knowledge of what they were doing.

Then you run into the problem of meddling.

I do not believe, for one moment, that we would be 'better off' if we just completely ignored the Middle East. I do not believe they needed our meddling in their affairs to have a reason to wage their ideas of war against us.

That said - I can't say I am of the opinion that we should be playing around in the sand with them, either.

I am unlike many Libertarians on this issue because I do not see the 'nation of Islam' as a classical country that can be dealt with according to economics. It will not make decisions based upon the same rational logic we use - it will make them based upon Islamic rationale which is blatantly hostile and expansionist for the sake of bringing the world under one rightful religion.

Thus, to believe it will not become a problem is just naive.

On the other hand - trying to 'nation build' in the way we were and this 'new' attempt to 'fund the enemies of our enemies' is a very ineffectual solution. Especially when the enemies of our enemies just signed a peace treaty and decreed they would use our arms to overthrow the dictator who does not want our enemies to have power over him.

If this were the old CIA - they would have armed Assad - since he can at least be dealt with as a 'classic country' and will be somewhat predictable in how he will behave.

I think our best course of action is to fix our own home nations, first.

The U.S. needs to go back onto a gold standard. We need to hold a convention of states to emphasize the restrictions of authority placed upon our federal government. We need to bring our military home and re-establish our borders. We need to rid ourselves of social entitlements (immigration, then, becomes much less of an issue), and we need to rid ourselves of unconstitutional taxes (essentially all of them spare sales taxes). The governments would see a reduction in regulation authority and our economy would do a 180 within a decade.

Then we can start looking at how to handle the issue of Islam.

Unfortunately - this is not likely to happen. The U.S. economy will implode and will take a lot of the other western nations along with it. Our foolishness will have backed a bunch of anti-state rebels in the middle east - so it will be a wide open market for groups like ISIS to expand the caliphate (I am almost beginning to suspect Obama knows this and this is his aim).

This will prompt a new 'dark age' - through which the Islamic State will reclaim most of its old Ottoman territory.

They will probably have a bit more trouble with East Europe and the Balkans - since they still have the stomach for genocide - and Russia won't be hit as hard by our collapse as many of the other nations will - but China and India will be dealing with an Islamic incursion when their economy is in the midst of reeling from the effective loss of America and much of the EuroZone.

But, assuming everyone recovers - those who are left will face a very troubling problem.

Do the regions that were conquered and have been converted need to be re-conquered?

If not - will this happen again?

It could be that so-called 'radicalized' Islam will not spread as effectively outside of areas of the Middle East - since those regions tend to be more rich in resources and the tactics of Islam are more geared toward desert nomads....

But Bosnia and Chechnya stand out as relatively temperate regions while having entrenched Muslim populations.

On the other hand - the Kurds have held out against Muslim invasions for centuries - and their portion of Iraq is absolutely beautiful.

The Serbs, also, survived for many generations under the Ottoman empire while resisting attempts at subversion - as did the Croats and Greeks.

So it could be that certain cultures are just harder for Islam to crack than others. The Serbs are noted as being fairly collectivist - so that might be a factor that keeps them from being as harshly affected by the whole women marrying Muslim conversion strategies.

Either way - I think it's a problem that will have to be addressed - though not in the way we are trying to address it, now.

I'm also not so certain that the problem can be addressed in a way that is anything other than Islam's tactics applied against it. Counter-invade, counter-conquer, and counter-annihilate. Destroy the men and let the women be free or marry to men of western culture of their own volition. Men tend to carry the ideas and customs of society while women tend to carry the history.

I don't particularly -like- that solution - but I'm not seeing many practical alternatives in the long run.

 

[valandil988]

You mean the terrorist organization likely funded by America and perhaps Russia in cooperation to create tools for another war in the middle east?

Blatant manipulation on the part of the west, I'm old enough and smart enough to know that much.

There will be another war much like the Iraq conflict.

My viewpoint is a rather 'messy' one.

Basically - most of our federal officials are guilty of treason and should be summarily executed, along with the first four tiers of democrat and republican party leadership. And their families out to one vector along with the family dog.

I'm being deliberately ridiculous there - but the point is that these people have become exceptionally entrenched in power and the quest to acquire more of it - despite having none of the discipline necessary to wield that power.

The problem with Islam is one that needed no help from us. ISIS, or a group like them, would have come to power at some point in time. Our involvement may have decided which group, specifically, succeeded insofar as they have - and accelerated the time schedule - but it was only a matter of time before these groups started to gain more traction.

The problem with the U.S. has just been one of progressive insanity.

For whatever reason, many economists back in the 50s and even 60s believed in the practicality and efficiency of centralized planning. Probably because the USSR seemed to be such a thriving and productive atmosphere. Thus, it was believed necessary to fight the Russians everywhere we could to strain their resources.

The CIA was given hideous amounts of foreign authority and began selecting various groups and nations to arm if they agreed to fight the Russians.

When Russia invaded Afghanistan during their attempts to get Chechnya to get with the program - we funded anyone willing to pull a trigger in the direction of the Russians. At least, at the time, the CIA did a fairly decent job of choosing people who were willing to fight.

Unlike now...

Anyway - this all continued up until the USSR collapsed.

Then the CIA was gutted. Issues like Iran-Contra and Watergate (a story broke by the CIA - which maintained a lot of intel on DC's antics...) left a very sour taste in the mouth of politicians - who ruthlessly destroyed funding for the CIA.

While I have to say I support the ending of programs meant to fund opposition elements - the problem is that many of these programs were tied in with human intelligence resources. These were informants we had embedded into groups like AQ - we had active reports coming out of Iran, Iraq, and many other places. These should have been kept in-tact. They take decades to build and are exceptionally fragile.

Which is why we essentially lost any and all influence over many of these groups - or even just knowledge of what they were doing.

Then you run into the problem of meddling.

I do not believe, for one moment, that we would be 'better off' if we just completely ignored the Middle East. I do not believe they needed our meddling in their affairs to have a reason to wage their ideas of war against us.

That said - I can't say I am of the opinion that we should be playing around in the sand with them, either.

I am unlike many Libertarians on this issue because I do not see the 'nation of Islam' as a classical country that can be dealt with according to economics. It will not make decisions based upon the same rational logic we use - it will make them based upon Islamic rationale which is blatantly hostile and expansionist for the sake of bringing the world under one rightful religion.

Thus, to believe it will not become a problem is just naive.

On the other hand - trying to 'nation build' in the way we were and this 'new' attempt to 'fund the enemies of our enemies' is a very ineffectual solution. Especially when the enemies of our enemies just signed a peace treaty and decreed they would use our arms to overthrow the dictator who does not want our enemies to have power over him.

If this were the old CIA - they would have armed Assad - since he can at least be dealt with as a 'classic country' and will be somewhat predictable in how he will behave.

I think our best course of action is to fix our own home nations, first.

The U.S. needs to go back onto a gold standard. We need to hold a convention of states to emphasize the restrictions of authority placed upon our federal government. We need to bring our military home and re-establish our borders. We need to rid ourselves of social entitlements (immigration, then, becomes much less of an issue), and we need to rid ourselves of unconstitutional taxes (essentially all of them spare sales taxes). The governments would see a reduction in regulation authority and our economy would do a 180 within a decade.

Then we can start looking at how to handle the issue of Islam.

Unfortunately - this is not likely to happen. The U.S. economy will implode and will take a lot of the other western nations along with it. Our foolishness will have backed a bunch of anti-state rebels in the middle east - so it will be a wide open market for groups like ISIS to expand the caliphate (I am almost beginning to suspect Obama knows this and this is his aim).

This will prompt a new 'dark age' - through which the Islamic State will reclaim most of its old Ottoman territory.

They will probably have a bit more trouble with East Europe and the Balkans - since they still have the stomach for genocide - and Russia won't be hit as hard by our collapse as many of the other nations will - but China and India will be dealing with an Islamic incursion when their economy is in the midst of reeling from the effective loss of America and much of the EuroZone.

But, assuming everyone recovers - those who are left will face a very troubling problem.

Do the regions that were conquered and have been converted need to be re-conquered?

If not - will this happen again?

It could be that so-called 'radicalized' Islam will not spread as effectively outside of areas of the Middle East - since those regions tend to be more rich in resources and the tactics of Islam are more geared toward desert nomads....

But Bosnia and Chechnya stand out as relatively temperate regions while having entrenched Muslim populations.

On the other hand - the Kurds have held out against Muslim invasions for centuries - and their portion of Iraq is absolutely beautiful.

The Serbs, also, survived for many generations under the Ottoman empire while resisting attempts at subversion - as did the Croats and Greeks.

So it could be that certain cultures are just harder for Islam to crack than others. The Serbs are noted as being fairly collectivist - so that might be a factor that keeps them from being as harshly affected by the whole women marrying Muslim conversion strategies.

Either way - I think it's a problem that will have to be addressed - though not in the way we are trying to address it, now.

I'm also not so certain that the problem can be addressed in a way that is anything other than Islam's tactics applied against it. Counter-invade, counter-conquer, and counter-annihilate. Destroy the men and let the women be free or marry to men of western culture of their own volition. Men tend to carry the ideas and customs of society while women tend to carry the history.

I don't particularly -like- that solution - but I'm not seeing many practical alternatives in the long run.

Wow. You have pretty much put my own thoughts into black and white. Neat.